A Court has inherent power to allow amendment of pending execution application in proper cases apart from the express provisions of Order 21, Rule 17. The matter is one of discretion of the executing Court and except where the law of limitation raises an insuperable bar or where the decree holder has been guilty of gross negligence and where no equitable consideration stands in the way, the power of amendmentshould be liberally exercised."
2) . In Dineshwar Prasad Singh and others v. Deoniti Prasad Singh and others, the execution petition was sought to be amended by addition of some more properties to the properties, which were sought to be proceeded against in the first instance. It was held by a Bench of the Patna High Court that, "the amendment which the decree- holders sought to make in the execution petition was not an amendment contemplated by Order 21, Rule 17 and that the application for amendment must be treated as a fresh application for execution and the decree was, therefore barred by limitation under section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
3) . In The Firm of Fakirthai Karsanji and others v. Gulabbhai Khandukhai Desai and others it has been held that, "Under Order 21 Rule 17 there could be no amendment of execution application to add more property to be sold or attached. But. however, if such amendment application is filed within the prescribed period of limitation for a new application for execution, can be treated as an independent application and decree holder directed to pay extra court fees."
